The defence secretary’s nomination

Hagelian dialectic

A far from scholarly process

AT A perilous moment of transition for America’s armed services, involving departure from Afghanistan, looming budget cuts and significant worldwide tension, the Pentagon is set to receive a civilian leader weakened by partisan attacks and doubts about his willingness to see military power used. As The Economist went to press, Barack Obama’s nominee for secretary of defence, Chuck Hagel, seemed likely, though not certain, to earn the Senate’s grudging endorsement.

Many attacks on Mr Hagel—a former Republican senator treated as an apostate after he turned against the Iraq war, opposed unilateral sanctions on Iran and criticised the influence of pro-Israel groups in Washington—have been over the top. On February 12th the Senate Armed Services Committee divided along party lines, with Democrats outvoting Republicans by 14 votes to 11 to send Mr Hagel’s nomination to the full Senate. Normally defence secretaries are given bipartisan support.

A Texas Republican, Ted Cruz, speculated at that meeting—without evidence—that if Mr Hagel could not provide the ultimate source of speaking fees received in recent years, it was “relevant” to wonder if the cash came from anti-Israel extremists, or “directly from North Korea”. The top Republican on the committee, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, endorsed critics who have called Mr Hagel “cosy” with terrorist states, citing reports that Iranian officials had voiced support for his appointment.

However, even defenders agree that Mr Hagel damaged himself with a stumbling performance at his confirmation hearing, as he was pressed over past statements and votes on Israel, Iran and nuclear weapons. Republicans call Mr Hagel weak in his support for Israel and soft on Iran. Allies call him a thoughtful sceptic about America’s ability to control the new world order.

With Democrats wielding a 55-45 Senate majority, Republicans were left pondering delaying tactics to slow a final vote. Two Republicans, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain, of Arizona linked Mr Hagel’s nomination to their quest for information about Mr Obama’s response to last September’s terrorist attack in Benghazi, which killed officials including America’s ambassador to Libya. Mr Graham threatened to hold up Mr Hagel’s confirmation and that of John Brennan, named by Mr Obama to head the CIA, until he has been given answers.

On February 13th the Democratic majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, accused Republicans of effectively mounting a filibuster against a presidential nominee for defence secretary, calling that unprecedented and “a shame”. He proposed a motion to force a vote, set for February 15th, needing a supermajority of 60 to pass.

Even if Mr Hagel squeaks through, the row points to broader conservative angst about foreign policy. Republicans suspect that Mr Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism, and chose Mr Hagel to help him shrink the Pentagon. Yet they also understand that Americans are war-weary. Republican defence and budget hawks are divided over automatic spending cuts that may hit the Pentagon next month.

At Mr Brennan’s confirmation hearing, senators seemed unsure whether to cheer or to deplore Mr Obama’s expanded drone strikes against suspected terrorists, including American citizens. Mr Brennan insisted that drones are used with care, but Rand Paul, a Republican from the libertarian right, later said he was willing to block Mr Brennan unless he clarified whether the president claims a right to kill Americans with drones inside America. Mr Brennan is likely to get his job, but via a painful lesson in the new politics of national security.